DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, in line 3, Applicant recites “the micro-LED tile”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner believes this phrase should read “a substrate to which the micro-LEDs are bound” but asks Applicant to verify and correct as appropriate. Claims 2-11 are rejected under this provision at least based on their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, in lines 1-2, Applicant recites “the rotating color module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, in line 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, in line 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, in line 2, Applicant recites “the micro-LED unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, in line 2, Applicant recites “the rigid substrate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner believes this should read “the substrate” but asks Applicant to verify and correct as appropriate. Moreover, in line 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 9-11 are rejected under this provision at least based on their dependency on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenasont (WO 2017/019725; cited by Applicant on IDS) in view of Hong (US 2021/0031679).
Regarding claim 1, Wenasont discloses a method of improving driver visibility, the method comprising: having an intelligent micro-LED headlight comprising a micro-LED panel comprised of a plurality of micro-LEDs (see paras [0035]-[0038] and [0083]-[0086] which teaches the headlight can be LED arrays utilizing light emitting pixels and a microlens arrays), and a plurality of sensors, wherein, the sensors collect data of a vehicle's surroundings (see at least paras [0029]-[0033] for non-exhaustive list of sensors), the intelligent micro-LED headlight determines if there is an object, if there is an object, the intelligent micro-LED headlight determines if the object is a road marker, sign marker, road reflector, black ice or oncoming traffic, and compares the identified object to a rules database (see at least paras [0032]-[0034] which teaches comparing scene information to stored object profiles in database and controlling illumination), extracts the corresponding rule, and adjusts, changes, or alters a light produced by the intelligent micro-LED headlight to improve the driving visibility (see at least Figures 1-16 and paragraphs [0023]-[0118]).
Although generally implied or inherent in order to support and power the micro-LED array, Wenasont does not specifically teach a substrate to which the micro-LEDs are bound or a connector which allows electronics of the micro-LED panel to integrate with a vehicle. However substrates for supporting micro-LED arrays and connectors for integrating the electronics with the vehicle are well-known in the art and taught Hong (see Hong, at least Fig. 2 and PCB 200 and connectors to power supply). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mount the micro-LEDs to a substrate and connect the electronics of the LED panel to the vehicle in Wenasont as taught by Hong in order to support and drive the micro-LED array for producing the desired illuminated pixel pattern.
Regarding claim 2, Wenasont and Hong disclose the limitations of claim 1, and further disclose wherein the light produced by the micro-LED panel in Wenasont can be white light to reflect back an orange and black sign, an orange or a red and black sign to the driver (see at least para [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, Wenasont and Hong disclose the limitations of claim 1, and further disclose wherein deep orange and black road markers can be detected by a rotating color module (see at least para [0089]; MEMS mirror) in Wenasont and can be displayed to the driver in a deep orange light produced by the micro-LED panel to brighten effects of a deep orange and black road marker (see at least paras [0036], [0040] and [0066]-[0069] and [0089]).
Regarding claim 4, Wenasont and Hong disclose the limitations of claim 1, and further disclose wherein white and black road markers can be detected by a rotating color module (see at least para [0089]; MEMS mirror) and can be displayed to the driver in a white light produced by the micro-LED panel to brighten effects of a white and balck road marker (see at least paras [0036], [0040] and [0066]-[0069] and [0089]).
Regarding claim 5, Wenasont and Hong disclose the limitations of claim 1, and further disclose wherein the light produced by the micro-LED panel in Wenasont can be a plurality of light colors (see at least paras [0036], [0040] and [0066]-[0069]).
Regarding claim 6, Wenasont and Hong disclose the limitations of claim 1, and further disclose wherein the micro-LED panel in Wenasont allows a micro-LED unit to produce visual effects for a driver to act as a headlight or replace a vehicle’s existing headlight (see at least paras [0023]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Wenasont and Hong disclose the limitations of claim 1, and further disclose wherein the micro-LED unit in Wenasont is connected, bonded or adhered to a vehicle’s headlight to produce a light or illuminate a vehicle’s path (see at least paras [0023]-[0030]).
Regarding claims 8-11, Wenasont and Hong disclose the limitations of claim 1, and further disclose wherein Wenasont and Hong do not specifically teach the type and features of the substrate holding the LED array. However, flexible or rigid substrates made of glass, silicon, saphhire or plastic with electrical circuitry in rows and columns are well-known in the art (Official Notice), and it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to specify that the substrate holding the micro-LED array be flexible or rigid substrates made of glass, silicon, saphhire or plastic with electrical circuitry in rows and columns in order to provide common, durable PCB’s or FPCB’s for supporting and driving the micro-LEDs to achieve the desired illuminated pixel pattern.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hin et al US 2021/0202813 (LED package on substrate)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P GRAMLING whose telephone number is (571)272-9082. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at (571) 270-5046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAN P GRAMLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights